Appointment (293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661, 660, 686,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Appointment
Total judgments found: 214

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

• Judgment 3191

  
  114th Session, 2013
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "The EPO’s position grounded on a distinction between an appointment and a promotion is fundamentally flawed. An appointment is simply the assignment of an individual to a particular position or post. A promotion is the assignment of an individual to a higher position or rank. The fact that a so called appointment process is used to make a selection or that the assignment is called an appointment does not exclude the fact that it may also be a promotion by virtue of the fact that it also involves the attainment of a higher position or rank or, in this context, grade."

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; selection board; vacancy; vacancy notice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3186

  
  114th Session, 2013
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her to several positions for which she had applied.

  Judgment keywords

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 3187
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3182

  
  114th Session, 2013
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a position for which she applied, although she ranked first in the technical evaluation.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  appointment; complaint allowed; flaw; mistaken conclusion; recommendation; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3176

  
  114th Session, 2013
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the appointment by direct selection of a staff member.

  Judgment keywords

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3175
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3157

  
  114th Session, 2013
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the selection process for a post for which he had unsuccessfully applied.

  Considerations 9 and 11

  Extract:

  "[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."

  Keywords:

  appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; criteria; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3130

  
  113th Session, 2012
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  appointment; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3125

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  appointment; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3110

  
  113th Session, 2012
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [A]s pointed out in Judgment 3032 in relation to the same provisions on which the complainant relies, “when an international organisation wants to fill a post by competition, it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; organisation's duties; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3090

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "[T]he Tribunal may rule on any employment relationship arising between an organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. (See Judgment 1272, under 9.)"

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competence of tribunal; contract; duration of appointment; official; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3074

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Meteorological Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 15-16

  Extract:

  "[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
  [M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986
  

  Keywords:

  acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; condition; contract; date; exception; limits; official; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3073

  
  112th Session, 2012
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "According to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal's censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body's alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgments 1158, 1646, 2584 and 2712.)"

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; appointment; breach; candidate; competition; condition; criteria; equal treatment; equity; flaw; grounds; organisation's duties; patere legem; safeguard; vacancy notice; working relations; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3032

  
  111th Session, 2011
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  "[W]hen an international organisation wants to fill a post by competition, it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law (see, for example, Judgment 2163 [...], under 3)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; case law; competition; consequence; decision; due process; general principle; organisation's duties; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
  

  Considerations 17- 18

  Extract:

  The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
  According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
  In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
  The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
  It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; selection procedure; vacancy;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3026

  
  111th Session, 2011
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  Failure on the part of the Organisation to give the complainant a fair opportunity to demonstrate improvement prior to deciding not to renew his fixed-term contract for unsatisfactory performance.
  "It must be assumed that until 2006 the complainant's work was satisfactory as his contract was renewed from time to time, albeit that he was not subject to performance appraisal during the period he was employed on temporary assistance contracts."

  Keywords:

  appointment; complainant; contract; performance report; period; satisfactory service; short-term; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3005

  
  111th Session, 2011
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  Rejection of a request for conversion of a fixed-term appointment to a permanent one.
  "In Judgment 1349, under 11, the Tribunal noted the wide discretion an organisation enjoys in relation to the decision to convert a fixed-term appointment to a permanent one. Given the highly discretionary nature of the decision, it is subject to limited review and will only be set aside 'if it is taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it is based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2694, under 4)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1349, 2694
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; contract; decision; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; permanent appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2978

  
  110th Session, 2011
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly when [...] the Administration chooses between candidates, the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision (see Judgments 1787, under 5, and 2035, under 4). These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of appeal proceedings (see Judgments 1590, under 7, and 2194, under 7)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1787, 2035, 2194
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; competition; date of notification; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; grounds;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2959

  
  110th Session, 2011
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "[T]he expression 'so far as practicable' cannot be interpreted to mean that for certain specific posts a competitive selection process can automatically be considered as not practicable (ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2620
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; interpretation; post; provision;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  Quashing of a direct appointment to the post of Chief of Cabinet.
  "[T]he rights of employees of international organisations to impugn decisions regarding appointments do not depend on their chances of successful appointment (see Judgments 1549, under 9, and 1272, under 12)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272, 1549
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; cause of action; decision; right; right of appeal; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2865

  
  108th Session, 2010
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4(b)

  Extract:

  Article 72 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office, the EPO's secretariat, concerns the expatriation allowance. Article 72(1) reads as follows:
  "An expatriation allowance shall be payable to permanent employees who, at the time they take up their duties or are transferred:
  a) hold the nationality of a country other than the country in which they will be serving, and
  b) were not permanently resident in the latter country for at least three years, no account being taken of previous service in the administration of the country conferring the said nationality or with international organisations."
  "The country in which the permanent employee is permanently resident, within the meaning of Article 72(1)(b) of the Service Regulations, is that in which he or she is effectively living, that is to say the country with which he or she maintains the closest objective and factual links. The closeness of these links must be such that it may reasonably be presumed that the person concerned is resident in the country in question and intends to remain there. A permanent employee interrupts his or her permanent residence in a country when he or she effectively leaves that country with the intention - which must be objectively and reasonably credible in the light of all the circumstances - to settle for some length of time in another country (see Judgment 2653, under 3)."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: Article 72(1) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2653
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; appointment; condition; definition; duty station; intention of parties; member state; nationality; non-resident allowance; official; organisation; payment; period; residence; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "[T]he date on which an employee takes up his or her duties depends on the number of staff the Organisation needs in order to function efficiently, which is a matter lying within its discretionary authority. Of course this does not exempt it from objectively weighing its own interests against those of the new recruit. In particular, it must not act arbitrarily or abuse its authority."

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; appointment; bias; date; discretion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; staff member's interest;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2850

  
  107th Session, 2009
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "[T]he complainant argues that his initial appointment ought to have been for an undetermined period since his duties were of a lasting nature. However, as he was recruited under a contract for a limited period his situation is in any case governed by the provisions applicable to such contracts, and even on the assumption that his post should normally have been filled by a servant appointed for an undetermined period - which, as can be seen from Judgment 1450, is not a matter which the Tribunal will review - this fact by itself could not lead to a redefinition of his appointment."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1450
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; appointment; contract; duration of appointment; judicial review; permanent appointment; provision; short-term;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2848

  
  107th Session, 2009
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 24

  Extract:

  "Having regard to the complainant's actions and his persistent, disingenuous attempts to reformulate the contents of communications, the Tribunal finds that the complainant's assertion that he did not reject the offer of the appointment as Chief of Cabinet and Director of ODG is not credible, and that he indeed rejected that offer on 1 August 2002. In the circumstances, the Organization was under no obligation to keep the offer open for any further period. Since it was not kept open, its purported acceptance did not give rise to a binding contract."

  Keywords:

  acceptance; appointment; binding character; contract; law of contract; limits; notice; offer; organisation's duties; reasonable time;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2834

  
  107th Session, 2009
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "It is well established that an organisation has a wide discretion in relation to the appointment and promotion of staff. For this reason, these decisions are subject to limited judicial review. That is, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; breach; discretion; judicial review; limits; promotion;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >